Question everything. Anywhere.

The Case for Fiction That's Free

In the world of digital publishing, there's a question as old as Internet time: If you give away content for free, are you devaluing an entire industry? Of at least one example, writers and editors say, firmly, no.

In the world of digital publishing, there's a question as old as Internet time: If you give away content for free, are you devaluing an entire industry? Many have said over and over again that this is so. Jonathan Tasini, who wrote more than 200 unpaid columns for The Huffington Post and then launched a class-action suit after the site's sale to AOL went through, wrote in The Guardian in April that "the consequences for creativity and democracy" of writers working without pay "are dire." But of at least one new example, writers, editors, and a major publishing house say this is not the case. Free is not always bad. Free might be, actually, good.

In 2009, Cal Morgan, an editor at Harper Perennial, came up with an idea. It was a blog called 52 Stories, on which a new, free story from a different author would be published each week. He called it "our little experiment in social engineering through the regular administration of short fiction." The site's tagline: "What would you pay for the perfect short story? To read it? To write it? Don’t post your answer. Instead write the story."

After two years of running the site, reading and selecting submissions on Sundays in his free time, Morgan became publisher of a different imprint and found he no longer had time to keep up with the pace of the weekly story grind. Still, he didn't want to give it up, nor the community of readers and writers who submitted regularly. "It was one of the most exciting things, engaging with the young writer community. I didn't want to walk away from that," he told The Atlantic Wire.

At the end of 2011, Morgan says, he had a stack of some 400 submissions. He spent a couple of weeks in December reading them, and selected 40 stories—what he still owed readers to make it to the year's 52—to publish and "close out that year, creating something that was bigger than the sum of its parts." The collection that ensued, Forty Stories, is now available for free download online as a PDF, and will be made free as an e-book July 17. Contributors include published writers like the New Yorker's Ben Greenman, novelist Elizabeth Crane, and Best American Short Stories 2012-featured Roxane Gay, as well as first-time authors like David Backer, who told us it's been a dream of his to be published. "This is probably the most exciting thing that's happened viz. the dream," he said.

As we enter a madcap new age of publishing in which many of the regular rules and chronologies no longer apply (take a look at the hyper successful Fifty Shades trilogy, which started as fan fiction and was self-published before ever going into print with a major publishing house), some things remain the same. Writers and and those in the publishing world still care deeply about what they're creating. People still want to read good stories. But the mechanisms by which we get material to readers from writers has changed drastically due to the Internet's scope and the power of social media. In a previous time, Forty Stories would likely have found its form of existence as a zine or maybe a literary magazine. Either way, it would have been bound by print. Print means costs, and also, usually, means at least some semblance, if a small one (particularly in the case of short fiction), of a payment to the writer. Such a publication would probably rely on subscriptions or purchases, and maybe ads, to cover publishing costs. But in the case of Forty Stories, no one makes any money—not the writers, not Morgan, who's doing the work in his spare time (his lovely foreword to the e-book is below, at left), and not even HarperCollins. In fact, the project comes at a cost to the publisher, though it's a cost Morgan calls "nominal." The reward is the creativity and the writing itself, and any exposure the Internet brings to the parties involved.

About a quarter of the authors in Forty Stories are already published by Harper Perennial, another quarter, Morgan says, are authors who've not published anywhere yet—the writers who submit tend to be long-time fans of the site and want to see their own work there too. The material is diverse, ranging from "very traditional, serious, thorough extended pieces of fiction to impressionistic avante-garde stuff to things in between, dark and light comic pieces," he says. It's also global: "There's a writer from Nigeria included in the collection who, simply because he sent me an email, is now is having his terrific short story read by young writers in Brooklyn, or by people downloading it in Kansas."

Despite the typical gut reaction of a journalist to the words "free content," each writer I spoke to was overwhelmingly positive about the project, and Morgan told me, "I haven't heard a single gripe! I feel that a lot of the goodwill and affection generated through 52 Stories was because we were bringing fiction, as chosen by HarperPerennial, to the public and not asking anyone to pay." Another benefit to this model is that he doesn't have to make a fiscal evaluation of the work before he publishes it—his decisions can be based purely on the writing, and not on how it might do in the market. "Everybody here sees [the website] an extension of an effort that we were already making to maintain our relationship with the writing community," he says. In these Internet times of writing based on page views and bottom lines, this is something of a breath of fresh air. Greenman adds, "I don't think of 52 Stories chiefly for what it doesn't have (money); rather, I think of it for what it does have—a sympathetic curator who keeps his eye on the ball even when he gets too busy, a community of like-minded readers, an open mind with regard to new methods of distribution, etc." Morgan is also Greenman's fiction editor at Harper, and Greenman says his commitment to this "other model" was part of the reason they ended up working together.

With the PDF and e-book, there was a formal copy editing process and the book was set into type, with a cover designed by Harper Perennial art director Robin Bilardello, but, Morgan says, "nobody at Harper Collins would say the amount of effort isn't worth the goodwill and opportunity that both sides get." At the end of the day, this is all about the writing, and contrary to the doomsday predictions you sometimes hear about the Internet killing good writing or creativity, Morgan says, "There is more exciting writing going on now with the newest generation of young, emerging writers today because of the Internet and free availability and access. In the past you had to print and distribute, which costs money. Now you can make this available for free, and the writers want to have their material out there and considered," he says.

Jamie Quatro, another Forty Stories writer, explains that it's well worth it to get to work with Morgan, whom she describes as "one of the smartest editors in the industry--that rare alloy of literary knowledge, editorial acumen, and personal generosity" and be published alongside writers like "Blake Butler, Ben Greenman, Kyle Minor, Elizabeth Crane, and Jess Walter, to name a few." She adds, "That said, it is very, very nice to be paid, even if it's minimal, or the payment comes in the form of contributor copies and a year's subscription. But the Forty Stories project is unique--it's more like a short story symposium. It's great exposure--one more way for potential readers to find my work." Greenman told The Atlantic Wire that he thinks the model works "for the same reason musicians donate songs to tribute albums or actors work for scale on projects that interest them. I'm writing stories, and I like for them to find homes, sometimes for profit, sometimes not--art isn't money, at its root, and when the two line up felicitously, fine, but if they diverge, that's fine, too." And, he says, "It's also a great place for stories that don't fit comfortably in traditional locations, like this one."

At least in this case, there's no desire to put what's successful digitally into print. While Morgan is considering what's next—possibly a free PDF/e-book collection every year—for the franchise, he says, "If you created it as a print book, it would be something people would have to pay for, and I couldn't do that without paying the writers. I think there's something great about it only being online." The writers agree. Quatro, who has a debut story collection coming out next year, adds, "I can send the link to friends, say 'Read this!,' and feel absolutely no compunction about asking them to spend money."

Most Popular

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

The strangest part about the continued personality cult of Robert E. Lee is how few of the qualities his admirers profess to see in him he actually possessed.

Memorial Day has the tendency to conjure up old arguments about the Civil War. That’s understandable; it was created to mourn the dead of a war in which the Union was nearly destroyed, when half the country rose up in rebellion in defense of slavery. This year, the removal of Lee’s statue in New Orleans has inspired a new round of commentary about Lee, not to mention protests on his behalf by white supremacists.

The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.

On August 21, the “moon” will pass between the Earth and the sun, obscuring the light of the latter. The government agency NASA says this will result in “one of nature’s most awe-inspiring sights.” The astronomers there claim to have calculated down to the minute exactly when and where this will happen, and for how long. They have reportedly known about this eclipse for years, just by virtue of some sort of complex math.

This seems extremely unlikely. I can’t even find these eclipse calculations on their website to check them for myself.

Meanwhile the scientists tell us we can’t look at it without special glasses because “looking directly at the sun is unsafe.”

Just seven months into his presidency, Trump appears to have achieved a status usually reserved for the final months of a term.

In many ways, the Trump presidency never got off the ground: The president’s legislative agenda is going nowhere, his relations with foreign leaders are frayed, and his approval rating with the American people never enjoyed the honeymoon period most newly elected presidents do. Pundits who are sympathetic toward, or even neutral on, the president keep hoping that the next personnel move—the appointment of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, say, or the long-rumored-but-never-delivered departure of Steve Bannon—will finally get the White House in gear.

But what if they, and many other people, are thinking about it wrong? Maybe the reality is not that the Trump presidency has never gotten started. It’s that he’s already reached his lame-duck period. For most presidents, that comes in the last few months of a term. For Trump, it appears to have arrived early, just a few months into his term. The president did always brag that he was a fast learner.

An analysis of Stormfront forums shows a sometimes sophisticated understanding of the limits of ancestry tests.

The white-nationalist forum Stormfront hosts discussions on a wide range of topics, from politics to guns to The Lord of the Rings. And of particular and enduring interest: genetic ancestry tests. For white nationalists, DNA tests are a way to prove their racial purity. Of course, their results don’t always come back that way. And how white nationalists try to explain away non-European ancestry is rather illuminating of their beliefs.

Two years ago—before Donald Trump was elected president, before white nationalism had become central to the political conversation—Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan, sociologists then at the University of California, Los Angeles, set out to study Stormfront forum posts about genetic ancestry tests. They presented their study at the American Sociological Association meeting this Monday. (A preprint of the paper is now online.) After the events in Charlottesville this week, their research struck a particular chord with the audience.

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”

Antifa’s activists say they’re battling burgeoning authoritarianism on the American right. Are they fueling it instead?

Since 1907, Portland, Oregon, has hosted an annual Rose Festival. Since 2007, the festival had included a parade down 82nd Avenue. Since 2013, the Republican Party of Multnomah County, which includes Portland, had taken part. This April, all of that changed.

In the days leading up to the planned parade, a group called the Direct Action Alliance declared, “Fascists plan to march through the streets,” and warned, “Nazis will not march through Portland unopposed.” The alliance said it didn’t object to the Multnomah GOP itself, but to “fascists” who planned to infiltrate its ranks. Yet it also denounced marchers with “Trump flags” and “red maga hats” who could “normalize support for an orange man who bragged about sexually harassing women and who is waging a war of hate, racism and prejudice.” A second group, Oregon Students Empowered, created a Facebook page called “Shut down fascism! No nazis in Portland!”

Anti-Semitic logic fueled the violence over the weekend, no matter what the president says.

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville was ostensibly about protecting a statue of Robert E. Lee. It was about asserting the legitimacy of “white culture” and white supremacy, and defending the legacy of the Confederacy.

So why did the demonstrators chant anti-Semitic lines like “Jews will not replace us”?

The demonstration was suffused with anti-black racism, but also with anti-Semitism. Marchers displayed swastikas on banners and shouted slogans like “blood and soil,” a phrase drawn from Nazi ideology. “This city is run by Jewish communists and criminal niggers,” one demonstrator told Vice News’ Elspeth Reeve during their march. As Jews prayed at a local synagogue, Congregation Beth Israel, men dressed in fatigues carrying semi-automatic rifles stood across the street, according to the temple’s president. Nazi websites posted a call to burn their building. As a precautionary measure, congregants had removed their Torah scrolls and exited through the back of the building when they were done praying.

If the president is concerned about violence on the left, he can start by fighting the white supremacist movements whose growth has fueled its rise.

In his Tuesday press conference, Donald Trump talked at length about what he called “the alt left.” White supremacists, he claimed, weren’t the only people in Charlottesville last weekend that deserved condemnation. “You had a group on the other side that was also very violent,” he declared. “Nobody wants to say that.”

I can say with great confidence that Trump’s final sentence is untrue. I can do so because the September issue of TheAtlantic contains an essay of mine entitled “The Rise of the Violent Left,” which discusses the very phenomenon that Trump claims “nobody wants” to discuss. Trump is right that, in Charlottesville and beyond, the violence of some leftist activists constitutes a real problem. Where he’s wrong is in suggesting that it’s a problem in any way comparable to white supremacism.

The nation’s current post-truth moment is the ultimate expression of mind-sets that have made America exceptional throughout its history.

When did America become untethered from reality?

I first noticed our national lurch toward fantasy in 2004, after President George W. Bush’s political mastermind, Karl Rove, came up with the remarkable phrase reality-based community. People in “the reality-based community,” he told a reporter, “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality … That’s not the way the world really works anymore.” A year later, The Colbert Report went on the air. In the first few minutes of the first episode, Stephen Colbert, playing his right-wing-populist commentator character, performed a feature called “The Word.” His first selection: truthiness. “Now, I’m sure some of the ‘word police,’ the ‘wordinistas’ over at Webster’s, are gonna say, ‘Hey, that’s not a word!’ Well, anybody who knows me knows that I’m no fan of dictionaries or reference books.